Perrine

"That all interpretations of a poem are equally valid is a critical heresy, but one which perennially makes its reappearance in the classroom." ("The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry," 1)

I've always believed that poetry should be open to interpretation. My first reaction to Perrine's theory was disagreement. To me, all literature, prose and poetry, is for the reader. The writer writes with a specific purpose, whether to entertain or prove a point, but in the end, the meaning of a work should be determined by the reader. However, that being said, I do see his point. This is a class about analyzing literature and getting down to what the author wants the reader to see in the work. From that perspective, Perrine's criteria is very accurate, and will be helpful getting down to the "facts." In a class, it's important to come to some kind of conclusion, but for people who read poetry for enjoyment what matters isn't the "real meaning," but what the poem means to them personally.

The last section of Perrine's essay about symbolism seems to contradict the rest of it. With the first three poems, there is one answer, and that's it. However, with Blake's poem, because it is symbolic, there can be multiple, correct meanings. He still puts parameters on the interpretations, but there is more than one interpretation. In the end though, who says what the writer was thinking about. Blake's poem is interpreted to be symbolic, but maybe it's not supposed to be. For all we know, Blake was just writing about worms and roses in a really romantic way. Again, I see Perrine's point. I understand that this class isn't about feeling, it's about analysis. I just don't like having limits placed on how I can analyze a work.